John Hudson wrote:
>> But, if that is the case - if the existing cross site restriction is
>> good enough for foundries who support EOT, and their aim is to get
>> profiting from web fonts ASAP, why isn't supplying TTFs with corrupt
>> NAME tables and a changed file extension good enough?
>
> Because its a hack, because it exposes the font to unknown dependencies
> in which it might not function correctly, and because we've spent the
> past ten years getting good at producing fonts to spec rather than
> putting in hacks to solve short-term software issues. We want a nice
> clean web font spec, against which we can test our products. Further,
> some of us have customers whose procurement requirements would prevent
> us from delivering fonts with corrupt data.
Name tables can be obfuscated without being "corrupt", they can be
entirely copasetic but constructed in such a way that they would
effectively be unusable in desktop apps.